Processing of an Audiobook in the Human Brain Is Shaped by Cultural Family Background
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perception of the same narrative can vary between individuals depending on a listener's previous experiences. We studied whether and how cultural family background may shape the processing of an audiobook in the human brain. During functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), 48 healthy volunteers from two different cultural family backgrounds listened to an audiobook depicting the intercultural social life of young adults with the respective cultural backgrounds. Shared cultural family background increased inter-subject correlation of hemodynamic activity in the left-hemispheric Heschl's gyrus, insula, superior temporal gyrus, lingual gyrus and middle temporal gyrus, in the right-hemispheric lateral occipital and posterior cingulate cortices as well as in the bilateral middle temporal gyrus, middle occipital gyrus and precuneus. Thus, cultural family background is reflected in multiple areas of speech processing in the brain and may also modulate visual imagery. After neuroimaging, the participants listened to the narrative again and, after each passage, produced a list of words that had been on their minds when they heard the audiobook during neuroimaging. Cultural family background was reflected as semantic differences in these word lists as quantified by a word2vec-generated semantic model. Our findings may depict enhanced mutual understanding between persons who share similar cultural family backgrounds.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".